I read your article
as noted above, and would like to express to you how thankful I am for writers
such as yourself. My son is presently in Ramadi, and the city is lost. It's
like out of a Mad Max movie, or Dawn of the Dead – the violence is horrific.

My other son is
in Kuwait and deploys for Iraq again, the al-Anbar region, tomorrow. Both my
boys are infantry, Marine Corps. Please keep getting the word out that the war
is lost. The Bush administration is well aware of that; however, we seem stuck
in this quagmire at Bush's whim. The American people MUST take action against
this war. If you have any ideas of what I can do as an ordinary citizen to help
end this nightmare, please e-mail me. Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy your
insightful articles, and praise God that you are there, helping to inform the
American people.

~ Sue B., mom
of two of "the few"

Great
article, but you need to make distinctions about Democrats and not smear them
with the same abandon that conservative libertarians did in the 1970s. We're
past that now. You need to acknowledge that the most liberal Democrats are your
antiwar allies. I don’t know why you don't just admit it. Are you afraid you
would lose your less subtle-minded, old-style libertarian readership if you
did?

In
his article entitled, "How Not to Handle Iran's Nuke Aspirations," Ahrari incorrectly
states that Ahmadinejad said, "Iran's government, unlike North Korea's, has
called for Israel's regime to be 'wiped off the map.'"

This incorrect
translation serves the Zionist agenda, and has therefore been widely distributed.
What he said was that Zionism will disappear from the pages of history.

Also, nowhere
in his statement did he actually threaten Israel, or "call" on anyone to destroy
it. All of the hype surrounding his statements were exaggerated, out of context,
and based on a heavily manipulated translation.

Paul
Craig Roberts asks a valid question: "When does 'collateral damage' so dwarf
combatant deaths that war becomes genocide?" However, his answer is incomplete
and shockingly underestimates the utter depravity of our government and the
evil apathy of American citizens who couldn't care less. We've been waging war
on the Iraqi people since the first George Bush launched the Persian Gulf War
and the subsequent sanctions killed 1,500,000 Iraqi people. Bush is right when
he says that 655,000 is not credible, because the real figure lies closer to
2,155,000 Iraqis killed by American policies. Sounds like genocide to me.

When people of
the United States loosely refer to dictators like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il
as "madmen," they obviously haven't stopped to consider the insane degrees to
which we'll hold innocent people responsible for the less than desirable actions
of their leaders.

~ Mac Beaulieu

Paul Craig
Roberts replies:

I
don't underestimate anything. I just report the findings of a survey conducted
according to scientific methods and ask a question.

Matt Barganier
replies:

Genocide
has a specific meaning
that doesn't seem to apply to the U.S. government's actions in Iraq: "The
systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political,
or ethnic group." Let's just call it mass murder.

This
article reminds me of the classical biblical story of Solomon's decision to
cut a baby in two and divide it between two mothers. The true mother of course
said no and told Solomon to let the false mother have the baby. This gave Solomon
the answer as to who was the real mother and he gave the baby to her. One can
look at Yugoslavia in the same way. The Serbs wanted to preserve Yugoslav unity
while the pretenders of brotherhood and unity wanted to divide it. The very
fact that Croats and Muslims were willing to divide the country, while the Serbs
fought to save it, proves that the Croats and Muslims were not the true "mothers"
of brotherhood and unity.

~ Walter Trkla

Nebojsa
Malic replies:

True
enough. But since the Empire is not King Solomon – not by a stretch! –
the decision to kill Yugoslavia and blame the Serbs for it carried the day.

I
think the idea that the partitioning of Iraq will somehow bring peace to Iraq
is naive. Many members of the various Iraqi factions live mixed among each other,
especially in the cities. Where would those lines be drawn?

Even outside of
the cities, who draws the lines and gets control of the oil fields, bridges,
power plants, and other valuable assets well positioned to benefit one or extort
the other? I suspect the factions in Iraq have much to fight for even if all
sides could agree on splitting the country up. The next round of battles would
be over where the lines are. Such battles are already seen around Kirkuk. Last
but not least, Iraq's neighbors, especially Turkey, may feel they have something
to say because of adverse effects on their national security from alleged terrorist
Kurdish groups. Turkey has no more interest in the Kurds controlling northern
Iraq than do the Israelis have in Hezbollah controlling southern Lebanon.

Short of finding
a new powerful dictator like Saddam, I fear the various factions of Iraqi people
will have no peace. Saddam's peace was difficult enough but probably better
than the anarchy and war of all against all that presently exists. The U.S.
peace will come when U.S. politicians decide to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq
and let the Iraqis fight among themselves.

Backtalk
is edited by Sam Koritz.
Click here to send
a letter. Letters become the property of Antiwar.com and may be
edited before posting. Unless otherwise requested, authors may be
identified and e-mail addresses will not be published. The views expressed
do not necessarily represent those of Antiwar.com.